[paulddraper]

Hello fellow libertarian.

The problem is that very many welfare recipients get more than $1,000/month per adult. Disabled? Single mother with children? You'll easily get 2x that (including check, food stamps, subsidized housing).

And no one is going to want to take away from the poor.

$1,000/adult/month replacing welfare is an impossibility. We'd have to use much larger numbers.

[pitaj]

If two checks are necessary, that's just more incentive for parents to stay together, or if that isn't possible, the child support can be taken out of the check. Also, with a guaranteed income, a family could much more easily move to a cheaper area with more opportunities.

People also don't tend to consider the harms that means-tested programs do to the poor. Subsidized housing is one huge per peeve of mine because it's essentially creating ghettos.

[paulddraper]

> People also don't tend to consider the harms that means-tested programs do to the poor.

True. Still, there will be many who are worse off with $1 UBI.

I agree with your views. But if UBI is ever created it has 0% chance of replacing welfare.

[uoaei]

It would certainly replace unemployment benefits but certainly not health- and family-based welfare.

Though the children could receive something like $800/month for the first, $600/month for the second, and so on up to the fourth which is compensated for $200/month. Anything above that will not be compensated. The diminishing returns will discourage people from having more kids just to have more money, and also will appease those who are afraid of "welfare queens" who only have kids to get money from the state. We know that the contingency of people actually doing that is practically nonexistent but it will assuage those who are still concerned about it.